Background: During the last decade, leadless pacemakers (LPMs) have turned into a prevalent alternative to traditional transvenous (TV) pacemakers; however, there is no consolidated data on LPM implantation in emergencies.
Methods: Digital databases were searched for this review and four relevant studies, including 1276 patients were included in this review with procedure duration, fluoroscopic time, major complications, and mortality as primary outcomes and pacing threshold, impedance, sensing of LPM, and hospital stay as secondary outcomes.
Results: Gonzales et al. and Marschall et al. showed the duration of the procedure to be 180 ± 45 versus 324.6 ± 92 and 39.9 ± 8.7 versus 54.9 ± 9.8, respectively. Zhang et al. demonstrated the duration of the procedure and fluoroscopy time to be 36 ± 13.4 and 11.1 ± 3.1, respectively. Similarly, Schiavone et al. exhibited intermediate times of implantation at 60 (45-80) versus 50 (40-65) and fluoroscopic times at 6.5 (5-9.7) versus 5.1 (3.1-9). Hospital stay was more with a temp-perm pacemaker as compared to LPM and pacing parameters were not significantly different in all the studies.
Conclusion: For underlying arrhythmias, whenever appropriate, our review shows that LPMs may be a better option than temporary pacemakers, even as an urgent treatment.
Keywords: electrophysiology; implantation; leadless pacemaker; permanent pacemaker; primary pacemaker.
© 2023 The Authors. Annals of Noninvasive Electrocardiology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.